News Article: Kentucky Clerk Is Due In Federal Court For Contempt Hearing

[mittman]

LOL,

I did

Been a bee in my britches for about 7 or 8 years now. There is a very loud, very small group (in the hundreds) here in the Shoals area that has been pushing this for a while. Had one yell at me from two blocks away in front of the court house that they had redefined it, and I had better get on board now when the local government was not issuing them. That person and I actually have a pretty friendly relationship despite our disagreements, but she said the same sentence herself.

I understand what the true believer proponents see this as.

 

[mittman]

what you consider forced acceptance many consider equal treatment in the eyes of the law

Not buying that for a second.

If equal treatment under a secular government was the goal no one would have any problem calling them civil unions. It is by far a more descriptive term, and indicates who is recognizing the union.

 

[cbi1972]

I get that. I don't agree with their reasoning, but I get it.

All anyone is saying is that the current accepted use of the term is being intentionally discombobulated for only one reason, forced acceptance. Anyone saying otherwise is not being honest (at least with themselves).

That's an awfully specific proposition to declare as a universal truth.

 

[mittman]

That's an awfully specific proposition to declare as a universal truth.

I agree. I try not to do that. However, I consider it accurate. See my reply to 92tide. The evidence that it is the case is overwhelming.

Edit: I had a discussion with a UNA professor that was specifically telling. When asking if a acceptable compromise where ALL shared property agreements would be called unions under our government. He specifically said that that would not give the appropriate level of acceptance within the society at large. I thought that just as telling as the woman that yelled at me from the court house.

 

[Tidewater]

LOL,

I did

Been a bee in my britches for about 7 or 8 years now. There is a very loud, very small group (in the hundreds) here in the Shoals area that has been pushing this for a while. Had one yell at me from two blocks away in front of the court house that they had redefined it, and I had better get on board now when the local government was not issuing them. That person and I actually have a pretty friendly relationship despite our disagreements, but she said the same sentence herself.

I understand what the true believer proponents see this as.

I have come to realize that advocates of same-sex union do not want acceptance. They demand endorsement, which is a step beyond just accepting.
I accept that Auburn exists. I even accept that there are some decent folks who will cheer for that weird, negative force in the universe. I'll be darned if I will endorse that cult, however.

If this little tiff was merely about acceptance, then we would have accorded same sex couples the legal (and tax) benefits via something like civil unions. Calling it "marriage" is about forcing everyone to endorse (i.e. officially approve of) same-sex relationships. Americans no longer have the right not to endorse same-sex relationships. They are required by law to endorse them.

 

[mittman]

I have come to realize that advocates of same-sex union do not want acceptance. They demand endorsement, which is a step beyond just accepting.
I accept that Auburn exists. I even accept that there are some decent folks who will cheer for that weird, negative force in the universe. I'll be darned if I will endorse that cult, however.

If this little tiff was merely about acceptance, then we would have accorded same sex couples the legal (and tax) benefits via something like civil unions. Calling it "marriage" is about forcing everyone to endorse (i.e. officially approve of) same-sex relationships. Americans no longer have the right not to endorse same-sex relationships. They are required by law to endorse them.

I agree, however I would not make the same blanket statement about endorsement. Those two words mean different things too. I thing the evidence is clear that it is all about forced acceptance. I don't think that is the case for forced endorsement, at least not yet. I would venture to say that the majority that are pushing the agenda want just that.

BTW, getting definitions changed in dictionaries a few years back was a big step pushed be a VERY small group of people.

 

[Tide1986]

I have come to realize that advocates of same-sex union do not want acceptance. They demand endorsement, which is a step beyond just accepting.
I accept that Auburn exists. I even accept that there are some decent folks who will cheer for that weird, negative force in the universe. I'll be darned if I will endorse that cult, however.

If this little tiff was merely about acceptance, then we would have accorded same sex couples the legal (and tax) benefits via something like civil unions. Calling it "marriage" is about forcing everyone to endorse (i.e. officially approve of) same-sex relationships. Americans no longer have the right not to endorse same-sex relationships. They are required by law to endorse them.

Well said.

 

[mittman]

what you consider forced acceptance many consider equal treatment in the eyes of the law

That's an awfully specific proposition to declare as a universal truth.

Just to be clear as to what I mean by acceptance:
ac·cept·ance
əkˈseptəns/
noun
noun: acceptance; plural noun: acceptances
1. the action of consenting to receive or undertake something offered.
2. the action or process being received as adequate or suitable, typically to be admitted into a group.

Are you trying to tell me this is NOT the reason for using that term?

 

[cbi1972]

Just to be clear as to what I mean by acceptance:
ac·cept·ance
əkˈseptəns/
noun
noun: acceptance; plural noun: acceptances
1. the action of consenting to receive or undertake something offered.
2. the action or process being received as adequate or suitable, typically to be admitted into a group.

Are you trying to tell me this is NOT the reason for using that term?

I don't believe that there is enough consistency in peoples' opinions to say that there is any one singular reason.

For myself, I would selfishly rather not have to keep track of two separate sets of terminology and how to use them when it makes no difference except to people who want to make distinctions I regard as silly.

 

[92tide]

Not buying that for a second.

If equal treatment under a secular government was the goal no one would have any problem calling them civil unions. It is by far a more descriptive term, and indicates who is recognizing the union.

i sincerely hope you find comfort in that.

 

[Jon]

For myself, I would selfishly rather not have to keep track of two separate sets of terminology and how to use them when it makes no difference except to people who want to make distinctions I regard as silly.

this^^^^^

 

[NationalTitles18]

But on the flipside, why does the government get to define marriage when the constitution doesntot? The reason why is that they want full control of society so they can tax you.

My whole point is if the government took their common political correct stance and said in our eyes there is no such thing a "legally married" people, but we do view it as "civil unions" there would be far less strife because its a compromise and not an order.

As far as the separate but equal. Know this, Booker T Washington was all for the "separate but equal stance" because he felt that in time the whites and blacks would be able to coexist and in time be equal in all rights. Dubois favored extreme socialism and radical change. Under Dubois more racial violence and racial paranoia arose than it ever did with Booker T. When Dubois stood up against the Atlanta Compromise the NAACP used all means possible to promote Dubois in civil rights. SO really Booker's plan didn't really get a chance to see if it worked. I know the counter is "Well it worked when MLK brought down the establishment", but that comes from hindsight and thinking because one way worked the other way couldn't even though it was never given the momentum to work.

Im glad MLK brought down the establishment though, just for the record

A rose by any other name...

So many wrongs were done in the name of compromise in the arena of civil rights. It would have been far better for the country to just accept that the world had changed and then move on than to spend all the time, energy, money, and blood that was spent on keeping someone else from prospering. The South was held back for 100 years by racist idiots who pandered to those in power (who were more concerned with their own pocketbooks and warped sense of morality) by using the power of the government to deprive black people (and the poor whites) of their natural rights.

And for the record , the Constitution does NOT enumerate (or name) rights. That line of thinking is why some opposed the idea of a Bill of Rights and why the 9th Amendment was added to it. The Constitution does not grant rights. It recognizes that rights are inherent to the people and not granted by the government. It is why the courts will reason that a law is unconstitutional because it violates a right protected by the Constitution even though that right is never spelled out in the Constitution itself. And trust me when I say that applies much more to areas where you agree with the court's decision than when you don't.

 

[mittman]

I don't believe that there is enough consistency in peoples' opinions to say that there is any one singular reason.

For myself, I would selfishly rather not have to keep track of two separate sets of terminology and how to use them when it makes no difference except to people who want to make distinctions I regard as silly.

I normally agree with your first sentence, but again are you trying to tell me that is NOT what you want?

I totally agree with the second sentence. It is silly. I just think we see the silliness from two different mindsets. What is more silly, changing the accepted meaning of a word, or using a preexisting term that more accurately describe something?

i sincerely hope you find comfort in that.

Consider your hope dashed. I find no comfort in this whole thing. There are too many people on both sides stomping their feet and crying like 2 year olds over something that is easily reconciled. I have no more patience with those that believe as I do who would not accept civil unions whatever they are called, than I do with the screaming idiot my daughter got to witness proudly flashing everything he's got and then tonging his partner in a celebratory pride parade.

 

[NationalTitles18]

I have come to realize that advocates of same-sex union do not want acceptance. They demand endorsement, which is a step beyond just accepting.
I accept that Auburn exists. I even accept that there are some decent folks who will cheer for that weird, negative force in the universe. I'll be darned if I will endorse that cult, however.

If this little tiff was merely about acceptance, then we would have accorded same sex couples the legal (and tax) benefits via something like civil unions. Calling it "marriage" is about forcing everyone to endorse (i.e. officially approve of) same-sex relationships. Americans no longer have the right not to endorse same-sex relationships. They are required by law to endorse them.

I agree with the first part. There are too many that want others to join their party or be destroyed (literally - see bakers, ministers, and such). I have more to say but don't want to derail.

 

[Tidewater]

A rose by any other name...

So many wrongs were done in the name of compromise in the arena of civil rights. It would have been far better for the country to just accept that the world had changed and then move on than to spend all the time, energy, money, and blood that was spent on keeping someone else from prospering. The South was held back for 100 years by racist idiots who pandered to those in power (who were more concerned with their own pocketbooks and warped sense of morality) by using the power of the government to deprive black people (and the poor whites) of their natural rights.

And for the record , the Constitution does NOT enumerate (or name) rights. That line of thinking is why some opposed the idea of a Bill of Rights and why the 9th Amendment was added to it. The Constitution does not grant rights. It recognizes that rights are inherent to the people and not granted by the government. It is why the courts will reason that a law is unconstitutional because it violates a right protected by the Constitution even though that right is never spelled out in the Constitution itself. And trust me when I say that applies much more to areas where you agree with the court's decision than when you don't.

The Constitution does enumerate Federal powers, in an inclusive manner, meaning, that that the failure to enumerate a particular power means that the power in question was specifically denied the general government. This means that the Founder knew that the failure to delegate a particular power could be rectified via the amendment process, and the failure to amend meant denial of the power in question. The failure to win the amendment debate means denial. An idea the left HATES. They state, (in effect), "I can't win the debate, so want to be declared the winner by default."

 

[Jon]

I normally agree with your first sentence, but again are you trying to tell me that is NOT what you want?

I totally agree with the second sentence. It is silly. I just think we see the silliness from two different mindsets. What is more silly, changing the accepted meaning of a word, or using a preexisting term that more accurately describe something?



Consider your hope dashed. I find no comfort in this whole thing. There are too many people on both sides stomping their feet and crying like 2 year olds over something that is easily reconciled. I have no more patience with those that believe as I do who would not accept civil unions whatever they are called, than I do with the screaming idiot my daughter got to witness proudly flashing everything he's got and then tonging his partner in a celebratory pride parade.

easily? If this was so easy why did it take the Supreme Court to have to rule on it? You guys make it sound like gay marriage was right around the corner called civil unions, it wasn't. Not even close.

Just like Davis's lawyer on the "easy" fix of calling a special session of congress and changing KY law. Nothing easy there either. In fact it's far easier just to stick her in jail

 

[NationalTitles18]

The Constitution does enumerate Federal powers, in an inclusive manner, meaning, that that the failure to enumerate a particular power means that the power in question was specifically denied the general government. This means that the Founder knew that the failure to delegate a particular power could be rectified via the amendment process, and the failure to amend meant denial of the power in question. The failure to win the amendment debate means denial. An idea the left HATES. They state, (in effect), "I can't win the debate, so want to be declared the winner by default."

Completely true. Has no bearing on my statements, but true.

 

[cbi1972]

I normally agree with your first sentence, but again are you trying to tell me that is NOT what you want?

I'm not sure what you are asking anymore. What I want and what I would be justified in imposing on others are not the same thing at all.

 

[Tide1986]

easily? If this was so easy why did it take the Supreme Court to have to rule on it? You guys make it sound like gay marriage was right around the corner called civil unions, it wasn't. Not even close.

Just like Davis's lawyer on the "easy" fix of calling a special session of congress and changing KY law. Nothing easy there either. In fact it's far easier just to stick her in jail

Agreed

 

[mittman]

easily? If this was so easy why did it take the Supreme Court to have to rule on it? You guys make it sound like gay marriage was right around the corner called civil unions, it wasn't. Not even close.

Just like Davis's lawyer on the "easy" fix of calling a special session of congress and changing KY law. Nothing easy there either. In fact it's far easier just to stick her in jail

Yes easily.

Like I said, there are plenty stomping around like 2 year olds that believe as I do.

The fact that you are right and it is easier to stick her in jail is the scary part.

I see no attempt at seeing my point of view from those that I have discussed this with, none whatsoever. In fact it doesn't seem to matter one bit to them. That is one of the reasons that I made the blanket statement. I can consider the opposite point of view valid from their view point and submit a perfectly reasonable solution, I have yet to have someone extend me the same courtesy from the other side of the argument. Until I do, I don't believe thy consider my viewpoint valid, and the actions taken to date lead me to believe whatever means they take are considered justified to meet their ends.